2017 (6) TMI 491 - AT - Income Tax

Assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 to 151 - unexplained bank deposits - Held that - AO did not apply in his independent mind to the information received from AIR. Since no proceedings were pending before AO when he issued the letter of enquiry to the assessee, therefore such enquiry letter was not valid in eyes of law. The assessee was not required to respond to this invalid and non est letter of inquiry issued by the AO. The AO in the absence of reply from the assessee presumed that income to the extent of deposits had escaped assessment. The deposit in the bank accounts per se cannot be the income of assessee. It was mere suspicion of the AO based on incorrect facts that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The belief of the AO should be based upon some specific and tangible material for the purpose of reopening of the assessment. The course adopted by the AO was wholly unjustified in recording the incorrect facts in the reasons for reopening of the assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues involved:
- Reopening of assessment u/s 147 to 151 of the I.T. Act
- Addition of income based on cash deposits in bank accounts
- Validity of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment
- Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) in initiating reassessment proceedings

Analysis:

Issue 1: Reopening of assessment u/s 147 to 151 of the I.T. Act
The appellant challenged the assumption of jurisdiction under sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act and the subsequent addition of income amounting to ?13,91,657 based on cash deposits in bank accounts. The AO issued a notice u/s 148 after finding substantial cash deposits in the appellant's bank accounts. The appellant contended that incorrect facts were recorded in the reasons for reopening the assessment, leading to an invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the AO. The AO's reliance on AIR information and lack of independent verification were highlighted as reasons for challenging the reopening. The appellate authority found merit in the appellant's contentions and held that the AO's actions were unjustified, leading to the quashing of the reassessment.

Issue 2: Addition of income based on cash deposits in bank accounts
The AO made additions to the appellant's income based on significant cash deposits in multiple bank accounts. Despite being asked to explain the source of these deposits, the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory response, leading to the AO treating the deposits as business income. The appellant contested this addition, arguing that the AO's assumption of income escapement was based on incorrect facts and lacked a valid legal basis. The appellate authority partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to compute the income after considering the turnover disclosed under section 44AD of the I.T. Act.

Issue 3: Validity of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment
The appellant challenged the validity of the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment, emphasizing that incorrect facts were cited as the basis for initiating the reassessment proceedings. The appellant's representative cited relevant legal precedents to support the contention that the AO's actions were not in accordance with the law. The appellate authority concurred with the appellant's arguments, noting that the AO's reliance on incorrect facts and lack of proper reasoning rendered the reopening of the assessment invalid and unsustainable.

Issue 4: Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in initiating reassessment proceedings
The jurisdiction of the AO in initiating reassessment proceedings was a crucial aspect of the appellant's case. The appellant argued that the AO's actions were based on a mere suspicion arising from incorrect facts, rather than concrete evidence of income escapement. The appellate authority agreed with the appellant's position, highlighting the importance of the AO forming a valid belief supported by tangible material before reopening an assessment. The quashing of the reassessment orders in both appeal years underscored the significance of proper jurisdiction and reasoning in such proceedings.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal allowed both appeals, setting aside the reassessment orders and deleting the additions made to the appellant's income. The judgments emphasized the importance of valid jurisdiction, accurate reasoning, and adherence to legal principles in initiating and conducting reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act.

← Previous Next →